This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking allotment of land as a displaced person. The court rejected the plea due to an unexplained delay of over 30 years and the fact that subsequent rules disqualify the petitioner as the acquired land was below the required threshold.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.22317 of 2013 Date of Decision: September 14, 2015
Kiran Lata and others
...Petitioners
versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Sandeep Khungar, Advocate, and Mr.R.S.Modi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The land measuring 165 square yards owned by husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 was acquired way back in the year 1974 for the development of '400 Acres Model Town Extension Part II Scheme' floated by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 17.08.1982 and admittedly compensation was also paid. It is claimed that the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners applied for allotment of a plot being “a local displaced person” on 26.11.1982. As no allotment was made, the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2013.
It may be true that in some of the cases we condoned the delay subject to the caveat that the writpetitioners if found entitled to and eligible for allotment, the
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.22317 of 2013
allotment shall be made on 'current market rate' so that no financial loss was caused to the Trust. In the instant case that analogy cannot be borrowed as the total acquired land itself is 165 square yards and before the allotment could be made, a new set of rules, namely, “the Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983” came into force whereunder a 'local displaced person' was entitled to allotment of plot only if the acquired land was not less than 1/2 acre.
Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances coupled with the totally unexplained delay, we are not inclined to entertain this petition on merits.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
September 14, 2015 [JASPAL SINGH] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.09.28 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for allotment of land to a displaced person, filed after an unexplained delay of over 30 years, can be entertained on merits.
Whether the delay in filing the writ petition can be condoned despite changes in allotment rules affecting the petitioner's eligibility.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohinder KumarReferred¶15
Kiran Lata and others
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
Jaspal Singh
Mohinder Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
